Reply

Author

Email

Date/Time

04 Mar 2015 8:25:50am

Text

PreviousMessage

It’s the same old ominous sign. A remnant of social intelligence advocates the newest means for rendering thought automatic; as if thereby automatically free. This advocacy is so beholden to the usual “digital” techno-fix that it can only register but not heed its own misgivings.

Yes, the “digital” age of Communication flourishes on an irresponsible domination of Opinion over fact and logic. Yes, the “digital” age is an emphasis of distributive power over quality. Yes, it makes short work of contemplation.Yes, the “digital” age intensifies conformity and takes to extremes the reductionist tendency to quantify life.

By expressing these qualms, what difference to support for the “digital” age? All the stronger.

It’s not the technology itself as he leaves open to suggestion. It is this very optimism for the latest means of conformity; which turns critical capacity cursory and token. It hectors by this tokenism about its misgivings. Whatever thought does not comply with the “digital age” of expression you render nugatory. It is immediately very personal; but only personal like this.By this reservation from outright propaganda our “hands-up” lecturer makes a more compelling case for an imperative of obedience. By this effectively uncritical optimism the digital regimes of Communication are set more comprehensively than any totalitarian government. The Orwellian was never going to match this Free World of empty reservations and reassurances. It is the Promise that the arrant will find its own equanimity. It only needs to look around it.He argues as if he would like transformed into personal choices what by his advocacy can only work as mass compulsions. It’s the other way ‘round. Personal choices turn into “options”.His summary history of thought, truth and authority is peremptory, misconceived and trite. You could only get away with this semblance of critical concern in an age set to automatic Progress. This glibness once would have looked ridiculous; once when commercials could be widely still delineated from aspiration. The contrast between choice and compliance is now as reliable as any advert for any freedom machine, as authority enters the home as opportunity to share the world. Big Brother could only look on. We’ve got the suckers participating “24/7”. Orwell was never up to speed on the mental reality of restriction: all this advocacy is sincere and without obvious contradiction.